Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2011, the Defendant was punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on June 30, 201, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the same court on May 16, 2016.

At around 03:50 on August 30, 2019, the Defendant driven a E-high-est vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 140 meters from the front of the Cmatet located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road of the same Gu, while under the influence of alcohol of about 0.09%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report, and result of measurement of drinking;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiry reports and investigation reports, including criminal records, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 and 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, even though he/she had been punished twice due to drinking alcohol driving, once again, was engaged in drinking alcohol driving in this case. Therefore, the defendant needs to be punished corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant has committed a misunderstanding and against his will not repeat the same mistake, and prior to the instant case, there is no record of criminal punishment other than the fine as above.

The driver did not cause a traffic accident due to drinking driving.

The defendant is in an economically difficult situation and supports the consciousness of the wife through his occupational activities.

People around the defendant want to take a preference against the defendant.

Considering these circumstances and other conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, the defendant's act of sentencing is believed to be different only once.